Meekins et al v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company et al

Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CAROLE MEEKINS and
MARK PELTIN
Plaintiff,
vs.
UNITED SERVICE AUTOMOBILE
ASSOCIATION, USAA CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY,
CHUBB NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, and
FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 25-cv-715-SMY
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YANDLE, District Judge:
Plaintiffs Carole Meekins and Mark Peltin filed the instant lawsuit in state court seeking
coverage under two insurance policies and asserting breach of contract and vexatious delay claims.
Defendant USAA Casualty Insurance Company (“USAA CIC”) removed the matter to this Court.
Now pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand (Doc. 25), which Defendants
oppose (Docs. 28, 29). For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED.
Background
Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit in state court on January 23, 2025, naming United Service
Automobile Association (“USAA”) and Chubb National Insurance Company (“Chubb”) as
defendants. According to Plaintiffs, the defendants represented that they were incorrectly named
and that different corporate entities, USAA CIC and Federal Insurance Company (“Federal”), were
the proper defendants. Plaintiffs sought leave of the state court to amend their Complaint to correct
the apparent misnomer and substitute what was purported to them as the properly named
Case 3:25-cv-00715-SMY Document 30 Filed 12/10/25 Page 1 of 4 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 2 of 4
defendants. The state court granted Plaintiffs’ motion and Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint naming
USAA CIC and Federal as defendants was filed on April 14, 2025.
USAA CIC removed the case to this Court on April 25, 2025 (Doc. 1). On May 14, 2025,
Plaintiffs moved for leave to amend the Complaint to add USAA and Chubb, which Plaintiffs
believe are also culpable corporate defendants (Doc. 14). This Court granted Plaintiffs leave to
amend pursuant to Rule 15(a) (Doc. 16).
In the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that USAA and USAA CIC executed
and delivered an automobile insurance policy to them and that Chubb and Federal executed and
delivered to an excess automobile insurance to them. 	Plaintiffs further allege the defendants
breached their contracts with Plaintiffs by failing to compensate them for their injuries following
a reported loss.
On October 6, 2025, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion, alleging USAA was a non-diverse
defendant and that remand is therefore appropriate. Defendants oppose the motion and assert the
Court should reconsider its order granting Plaintiffs leave to amend, strike Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint, and deny Plaintiffs’ motion to remand.
Discussion
When joinder of a nondiverse party would destroy subject matter jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. §
1447(e) applies and provides the court two exclusive options: (1) deny joinder, or (2) permit
joinder and remand the action to state court. Schur v. L.A. Weight Loss Centers, Inc., 577 F.3d
752, 759 (7th Cir. 2009). 	In other words, the Court cannot permit joinder of a nondiverse
defendant, here USAA, and retain jurisdiction. Id. In deciding whether to permit post-removal
joinder of a nondiverse party, the Court weighs: (1) the plaintiff's motive for seeking joinder,
particularly whether the purpose is to defeat federal jurisdiction; (2) the timeliness of the request
Case 3:25-cv-00715-SMY Document 30 Filed 12/10/25 Page 2 of 4 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 3 of 4
to amend; (3) whether the plaintiff will be significantly injured if joinder is not allowed; and, (4)
any other relevant equitable considerations. Schur at 759.
The fraudulent joinder doctrine is not dispositive in determining whether post-removal
joinder is improper; rather, it is another mechanism for a court to utilize in analyzing a plaintiff’s
motive in joining a nondiverse party. Schur, 577 F.3d at 764. Fraudulent joinder is difficult to
establish and requires a defendant to demonstrate that, “after resolving all issues of fact and law in
favor of the plaintiff, the plaintiff cannot establish a cause of action against the in-state defendant.”
Poulos v. Naas Foods, Inc., 959 F.2d 69, 73 (7th Cir. 1992).
Here, Defendants assert that Plaintiffs’ sole motive for seeking joinder of USAA and
Chubb is to defeat diversity. 	However, Plaintiffs maintain they possess evidence showing that
USAA and Chubb were involved in the execution and delivery of the policies at issue in this case.
Moreover, the policies repeatedly contain references to USAA and Chubb, and Plaintiffs allege
that all named defendants vexatiously delayed payment pursuant to the policies. 	Based on the
allegations in the First Amended Complaint and a review of the policies, the Court finds that
Defendants have not established that Plaintiffs sole motive for seeking joinder was to destroy
diversity.
With respect to the timeliness of Plaintiffs’ request to amend, this case was recently filed
and removed and is still in the early stages of litigation. Plaintiffs originally filed this action against
USAA and Chubb in state court. Plaintiffs moved to reinstate their allegations against USAA and
Chubb less than a month after removal on the basis that Plaintiffs sought to name all culpable
parties. Plaintiffs have not been dilatory in their request to amend.
Finally, the Court finds that both the third and fourth factors for consideration weigh in
favor of Plaintiffs. Generally federal courts are reluctant to deny joinder when its denial will force
Case 3:25-cv-00715-SMY Document 30 Filed 12/10/25 Page 3 of 4 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 4 of 4
a plaintiff to pursue parallel lawsuits in state and federal court. In re Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.,
ATX, ATX II, 129 F. Supp. 2d 1202, 1206 (S.D. Ind. 2001). And although the diverse defendants
have an interest in the federal forum, it does not outweigh Plaintiffs’ interest in full recovery.
Accordingly, the Court will permit the joinder of USAA and Chubb.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ cause
of action; Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand (Doc. 25) is GRANTED. 	The Court REMANDS this
case to the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois. Further, the motions to dismiss
filed by USAA and Chubb (Docs. 19, 24) are TERMINATED as MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: December 10, 2025
STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-00715-SMY Document 30 Filed 12/10/25 Page 4 of 4 Page ID
#<pageID>